[raw]
[/raw]
On Monday night, Politico reported that a leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion — not a final ruling — suggested the court may overturn federal abortion rights it ruled on in 1973’s Roe v. Wade and upheld in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The draft report set off a bonfire of speculation about whether the court would actually overturn the cases when it releases its final opinion in the coming months, the effect such a decision would have on states’ abortion laws, as well as what the political implications could be for the upcoming midterm elections.
If U.S. Supreme Court ends the federal protection for abortion, it would not necessarily make abortion illegal in Minnesota. In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the right to abortion is protected by the state’s Constitution, and it’s regulated by state law. Here’s a look at what Minnesota’s abortion laws are and what we know about who gets abortions in the state.
Minnesota’s abortion laws
In Minnesota, abortions can generally be obtained up to the point of fetal viability — or the time at which a fetus could potentially survive outside the uterus. That’s typically thought to be at about 24 weeks of gestation, said Laura Hermer, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. There are exceptions if the life of the mother is in danger or if there’s a fetal anomaly incompatible with life.
Minnesota has a 24-hour waiting period, and also has an informed consent law. “There’s a script that has to be read, there are specific issues that must be discussed with the patient,” Hermer said.
In Minnesota, abortions must be provided by physicians. They cannot be performed by registered nurses or physician assistants.
There can also be felony penalties for people who break the law.
“If you don’t don’t provide the script that Minnesota mandates, then the penalties are a felony,” Hermer said. “If you’re a nurse midwife, or a certified nurse practitioner [who are not physicians] and you provide an abortion, you have felony penalties.”
Minnesota also requires both parents of a minor to be notified of their child’s abortion procedure.
Declining abortion rates
The Minnesota Department of Health’s Center for Health Statistics collects and publishes data annually on who gets abortions, when in pregnancy they happen and how they are conducted. The most recent report came out in 2021 and covers 2020.
The number of abortions induced in Minnesota has declined dramatically over the years, from more than 19,000 in 1980 to fewer than 10,000 each year since 2018. In terms of the state’s population, the rate has gone from 17.2 to 7.6 abortions per 1,000 female residents age 15 to 44 between 1980 and 2020.
When it comes to people getting abortions in Minnesota, most are in their 20s, are residents of Minnesota, and many have previously given birth to children, state data show.
Of 9,108 abortions induced in Minnesota in 2020, 8,249 were among Minnesota residents. 859 people traveled to Minnesota from other states — mostly nearby — or other countries, in one case, for the procedure.
[raw]
[/raw]
In terms of age, most people seeking abortions are in their 20s.
[raw]
[/raw]
Data from the state show Minnesota residents receiving abortions in Minnesota are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, Asian and Indigenous.
[raw]
[/raw]
When answering why they were seeking abortions, patients could choose multiple options. The most common stated reasons were not wanting children at the time, economic reasons, and concerns for emotional and physical health.
[raw]
[/raw]
Thirty-nine percent of 2020 Minnesota abortion patients reported no previous live births, while 61 percent reported having one or more previously.
Sixty percent of people who got abortions in 2020 reported never previously having an abortion.
Of patients who received abortions, 82 percent were not married, while 15 percent were married. The marital status of 3 percent were not reported.
Few complications
The report also includes data on gestation and method of abortion. It shows the majority of aborted fetuses are estimated to be under 9 weeks, and most abortions are induced via medication.
In 2020, 70 percent of abortions occurred at less than nine weeks of gestation. Ninety-nine percent were estimated to be less than 24 weeks, while 1 percent were not reported.
[raw]
[/raw]
Fifty-five percent of abortions were induced with medication, while 45 percent were done surgically, most via dilation and curettage, which involves dilating the cervix and removing tissue from the uterus.
Of the 9,108 induced abortions, no complications were reported during the procedure in 9,000. Eighty-nine post-operative complications were reported, most often incomplete termination of pregnancy.
Editor’s note: This article previously misstated the law surrounding abortions after fetal viability in Minnesota. This article clarifies that prohibitions on abortion after fetal viability were struck down, though they are generally followed in practice.
[raw]
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-states’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: false }, xAxis: { categories: [‘Minnesota’,’Wisconsin’,’South Dakota’,’Iowa’,’North Dakota’,’Michigan’,’Other states’,’Other foreign countries’]}, yAxis: {title: { text: ‘#’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) +”; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘#’, data: [8249,548,152,55,44,8,51,1], }
]
}));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-abage’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: false }, xAxis: { categories: [‘<15′,’15-17′,’18-19′,’20-24′,’25-29′,’30-34′,’35-39′,’40+’,’Not reported’]}, yAxis: {title: { text: ‘#’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) +”; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘#’, data: [22,195,566,2506,2629,1556,1276,357,1], }
]
}));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-race’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: true }, xAxis: { categories: [‘White, non-Hispanic’,’Black, non-Hispanic’,’Hispanic’,’Asian, non-Hispanic’,’American Indian, non-Hispanic’,’Other, non-Hispanic’,’Not reported’]}, yAxis: {title: { text: ‘%’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,1) + ‘%’ +”; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘Residents who received abortions’, data: [39.6,29.1,9.9,6.7,2.1,5.3,7.4], }, { name: ‘Minnesota population’, data: [76.3,6.9,6.1,5.2,1,4.5,null], }
]
}));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-reason’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: false }, xAxis: { categories: [‘Does not want children at this time’,’Unknown or refused to answer’,’Economic reasons’,’Emotional health is at stake’,’Physical health is at stake’,’Other stated reason*’,’Pregnancy resulted in fetal anomalies’,’Pregnancy was a result of rape’,’Continued pregnancy will cause impairment of major bodily function’,’Pregnancy was a result of incest’]}, yAxis: {title: { text: ‘#’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) +”; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘#’, data: [5217,2751,1671,985,571,247,183,48,35,7], }
] }));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-gest’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: false }, xAxis: { categories: [‘<9 weeks’,’9-10 weeks’,’11-12 weeks’,’13-15 weeks’,’16-20 weeks’,’21-24 weeks’,’25-30 weeks’,’31-36 weeks’,’37 weeks+’,’Not reported’]}, yAxis: {title: { text: ‘#’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) +”; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘#’, data: [6391,1148,450,458,341,188,0,1,0,131], }
] })); [/raw]
“The most common stated reasons were not wanting children at the time, economic reasons, and concerns for emotional and physical health.”
Well that article made sense, so evidently from a conservative perspective its all garbage! Article from the NYT quotes the SCOTUS leaked document as a”gross betrayal of trust” and what is the decision if it becomes final, if not a “gross betrayal of trust” by our SCOTUS? So much for the 4-5-6 respect Stare Decisis liar justices. The truth she hurts!
“Data from the state show Minnesota residents receiving abortions in Minnesota are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, Asian and Indigenous.” Exactly what Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood had in mind. Good job, girls!
Long-standing economic racism in America is what leads poor people-of-color to choose abortion.
Yes indeed. I’m sure whatever eugenicist (as opposed to racist) views Margaret Sanger had over a hundred years ago are highly relevant to those involved in the organization today. Flawlessly logical.
But it’s a nice hobby horse to ride….
Thanks for amassing all this data so quickly on this now critical topic.
The most important point is that whatever Alito’s Repub Supreme Court may do in reversing the long-standing Roe precedent, the right to choose will continue to exist in MN under the state constitution.
It is true that the MN radical right (i.e. the Repub party) will try to pass new restrictions on the right should they gain control of the state’s government; that is why a Repub cannot be elected governor going forward.
Further, while the vast majority of abortions have been performed on residents to date, that will certainly change in future. This is because most of the Repub-controlled states surrounding us have already passed laws banning abortion upon the reversal of Roe.
The Dark Ages have returned to America.
This probable decision by the SCOTUS will not directly change anything in MN?
That’s correct. Thankfully.
So your point is, as long as I am good, my fellow Americans can all fall under dictatorial rule and everything is ok?
Is abiding by the terms of our constitution dictatorial rule?
When the said terms of the Constitution are in dispute, one side is necessarily dictating the terms of “abiding by the Constitution” yes. Did you believe your side is the sole arbiter of unquestionable truth? What am I saying, you’re conservative, of course you did.
So, if you don’t agree with it, it is dictatorial rule, and if you agree with it, it is not? Just trying to get this clear in my head.
Show me those terms! Like all men and women are not created equal, you know the one that says women’s bodies need to be governed by the state.
Well written Greta. thank you.
I’ll echo Dennis Litfin. Well done, Greta.
It is my assumption that if Republicans gain control of the governorship and both houses of the legislature in next fall’s election, abortion will be illegal in Minnesota.
Abortion has never been that big an issue in Minnesota. Once Roe v. Wade is reversed, I think that will change.
As the article noted, the right to an abolition is protected by the Minnesota Constitution. That will not change unless the make-up of the state Supreme Court changes dramatically, or unless the Legislature passes a resolution sending an anti-abortion amendment to the voters for ratification and inclusion in the state Constitution.
The likelihood of either event coming to pass is debatable.
It might not happen quickly, but remember that we have seen multiple proposed state constitutional changes in the recent past, and the MN constitution has been changed as recently as 2016. The MN state constitution isn’t that difficult to change (https://www.lrl.mn.gov/mngov/constitutionalamendments). And given the work the GOP is doing to suppress voting, it’s not unlikely that another constitutional change could be proposed, and if enough voter suppression is achieved, it could very well pass.
The last two constitutional amendments proposed to further the conservative agenda went down in flames. I don’t see outlawing abortion as being particularly popular with the state’s electorate, although stranger things have happened.
Strange as it might be to say, abortion has had only a limited impact on our politics since Roe v. Wade. At some point, years after it was decided, some politicians found it and used it as a wedge issue, that is an issue which seems important but about which nothing can be done. Abortion played it’s role every election season, as one issue voters dutifully cast their ballots on the issue, but that was pretty much it. Because the Supreme Court through it’s Roe decision had taken the issue off the table, it didn’t come up at the legislature much, at least in Minnesota.
Justice Alito has changed that. By shifting the decision of whether or not to have a child from women to state legislators, the justice has brought this most personal and intimate issue for any woman into the public sphere. At this point, I think it is impossible to overestimate the impact that this will have on our politics, and really in our unity as a nation. This could be the 21st century equivalent of Fort Sumter, and Justice Alito has just opened fire.
I understand what you mean, but there actually has been an enormous amount of anti-abortion legislation passed in Repub-controlled states in the past 20 years as “pro-life” forces tried to get closer and closer to an outright ban, to see just how much state regulation the Repub Supreme Court would allow under Roe/Casey. If you don’t follow all these “pro-life” antics, you might be unaware of this. The right to choose had been under heavy assault across much of the Fundamentalist Neo-Confederacy, as well as Northern states like the two Dakotas.
I do agree that these “conservative” efforts haven’t really gotten that far in MN because of Roe and the case saying that it’s a fundamental right under the state constitution I’d now guess that the pro-life forces will now redouble their efforts to increase abortion regulations in MN. But they can’t get an actual ban until the previous MN case is somehow reversed or the people vote to amend the MN constitution.
And yes, I agree Alito and the rest of his extremist colleagues on the Repub Supreme Court have now entirely changed the stakes of the Culture War, and the ongoing American civil war over abortion is now going to get much, much worse across most of the country.
The 50 year semi-truce is over, and the war will now become total, which has long been the “pro-life” goal.
Maybe this article ought to be updated to explain the recent court decision that the restrictions identified in the article have been declared unconstitutional.